March 6, 2007

Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a \[expletive]. (Interestingly, unlike "faggot," American newspapers won't print this word, although it's no more offensive). That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing.

Yet if I were to point out that Coulter is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a \[expletive], I suspect much outrage would ensue. After all, Nancy Pelosi is giving a speech later tonight inside this same hotel, in which - in this hypothetical scenario - someone Pelosi doesn't know (i.e., me) would have called Coulter a \[expletive].

If such a thing were to happen, the entire right-wing noise machine would leap into action. Ann Althouse would probably write a column in The New York Times about how, if Pelosi were really a feminist, she would unequivocally condemn some guy Pelosi has never heard of, who called Coulter a \[expletive] in front of 75 people in a hotel room in Denver.

What the hell is he talking about?

For reference, here's my post about the Coulter/"faggot" thing. My point was that I'm under no obligation to disassociate myself from someone I've never allied with. So this hypothetical column writing he's imagining... it doesn't fit me at all.

Thanks for keeping my name in the press, Paul. But that was just weird.

IN THE COMMENTS: Go in there and read Daryl Herbert's 11:08 comment. I'd reprint it on the front page here -- it's one of the best comments ever -- but it's kind of long, and it's got that word. You know, the word.

74 comments:

Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a \[expletive]...That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though ...if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing.

Not, that he would do that, but of course he just did. Isn't that a passive agressive poster?

You know, I consider Paul Campos to be a personal friend. I visited at the University of Colorado Law School in Spring 1991 and had what I considered to be a great relationship with him. So it's especially disconcerting to read him taking personal shots a me. I'm not just a name from a generic category for him but a real person. The guy knows me!

I'm thinking the RMN staff and Campos himself loved the traffic his little war with Glenn Reynolds generated and now their looking for a repeat. Be honored, Ann, that you are so high up on their list of potential targets.

I think he's trying to say that you're a hypocrite for your Coulter post because if it were some lefty calling Coulter nasty things you would write a post demanding that other prominent lefties denounce the name-calling. That was my impression; I just don't know where he's gotten that idea.

The only conclusion to be drawn, then, is that he liked the publicity from the Insty-bomb.

I do think that Campos is trying to play on a bigger playing field than Boulder, or with his News editorials, Colorado. The Reynolds escapade made him look pretty closed minded, but got him national notoriety.

How can wacko right wing law professors do so well in the blogosphere, and how does a wacko left wing law professor break into this? Obviously, by attacking wacko right wing law profs. Probably figures to take Ann out ot dinner to make up for it.

I don't know Campos the way Ann does, just by his columns, and I have thought him a wacko left wing law prof for a long time now. He would be an embarassment to any school in Colorado EXCEPT for CU Boulder where he teaches.

Althouse would probably write a column in The New York Times about how, if Pelosi were really a feminist, she would unequivocally condemn some guy Pelosi has never heard of, who called Coulter a \[expletive] in front of 75 people in a hotel room in Denver.

Does he even read your blog? I hope not, because the sentence above reveals a total lack of comprehension on his part. Sounds like he's basing his attack on gossip he's heard from the Left. Probrably thinks the whole Feministing drama was about you mocking her breasts.

Wow! Campos does exactly what he accuses Coulter of doing. He says he won't call Coulter a [?] because that would be bad. Coulter did the same thing with regard to Edwards. She said she would NOT speak anymore about Edwards because in doing so she might get into trouble for using the word faggot. So, just like Campos, Coulter refused to call Edwards a bad name, but made it clear she thought the name applied to him. If anything, Campos was even MORE clear he thought the term [?] applied to Coulter -- he repeated the term several times whereas Coulter only used faggot once.

Then, to top it all off, Campos noted that if he had called Coulter a [?], the media would demand that Pelosi denounce him. Does anyone recall the media making such a demand of Pelosi? Yet, if we are going to say Coulter called Edwards a faggot, we are obligated to say Campos called Coulter a [?]. So, Campos' column is a self-disproving thesis. He said if he did X, Y would happen. Y would then prove that there is no liberal bias in the media. He did X, why is there no Y? On the other hand, there have been plenty of calls in the media for Republican officials to denounce Coulter. Didn't he just prove (by his own terms) a liberal bias in the media?

You know, I consider Paul Campos to be a personal friend. I visited at the University of Colorado Law School in Spring 1991 and had what I considered to be a great relationship with him. So it's especially disconcerting to read him taking personal shots a me. I'm not just a name from a generic category for him but a real person. The guy knows me!

Ann, Campos may have considered you a friend, too, until you did the unthinkable -- you supported a Republican President in time of war. In Campos' world, it's not possible to have as friends people who do such things.

I found Campos' article interesting in that it attempts to debunk the meme on the right that the MSM is in the tank for the left by suggesting that they were giving Coulter a pass on her faggot comment. And that if a Democrat politician ever called Coulter a name, they would be instantly destroyed.

Of course, Campos is off the deep end here. The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been known to say quite anti-Semitic things, and are still quite active in politics. And a lot of prominent Democrats have said quite unkind things about the President, VP, etc. But Campos probably doesn't see anything wrong with them because he probably agrees with them.

But calling Edwards a faggot is apparently beyond the pale because, well, that is an insult to a strong Democratic constituancy.

The mention of Ann can really only be seen as gratutitious. It really didn't help his argument, and from my point of view, just made him look silly.

But what must be remembered is that this comes from his speech to the Young Democrats, and to them, Althouse is now probably red meat, as was Glenn. And definately is Coulter. I am just surprised that he failed to mention Michelle Malkin and her defense of Japanese internment in his article.

call Coulter a \[expletive].An expletive that describes a person who is being obnoxious and gasping for attention... it's like mad-libs, but for those current on idiotic things said by uninsightful pundits.

I'm sure the 75 people in Campos' hotel room know what The New York Times is. How many of them really know who Ann Althouse is? That thought apparently didn't occur to Campos. He knows and it irks him.

It's embarrasing to read this stuff -- this resentful obsession with the big time and people undeservedly more famous than yourself. I went to art school in Utah and I know the attitude well. Campos needs to give up his column and go talk to an analyst.

What an amazing character I am! Part of a noise machine, but on the DL. Fear my noisy quiet! My loud silence! My tiny hugeness!

Plus, I'm red meat. If you'd have told me back in 1991, when I knew Paul Campos, when I turned 40, that 16 years from now, you will be red meat, I'd have been marveling at what an amazing character I'm somehow going to turn out to be.

David's post makes an excellent observation -- Campos just did *exactly* what Coulter did (the "I won't call him an X" stunt), and his predicted right-wing outcry is nowhere to be seen.

Of course, this isn't necessarily proof of MSM liberal bias (as if more proof was needed at this point) so much as proof that pretty much everybody already knows that Coulter is a [expletive]. Even people who like her.

What's the stink about? Look up "faggot or faggots" in the dictionary. Faggots are bundles of sticks generally used as fire starters. So Coulter is being roasted for calling Edwards a stick. Let's move on. Let's call people cocksuckers, rug eaters, and things we can actually put our (hetero) arms around. Face it, Coulter jumped the shark, and jumped it big time. She may have well wanted all this ink she's getting.

Yet if I were to point out that Coulter is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a \[expletive]

First, the word is "cunt." Newspapers are willing to print "bitch," and I think he's looking for a gender-specific insult to mirror "faggot."

Second, Campos did call Coulter a cunt. What he wrote was basically "I'd call Coulter a cunt but my editors won't let me," which is a lot like what Coulter said about Edwards. David Walser, Campos is a lawprof, they're clever folk, he obviously did that on purpose and not accidentally.

Third, Campos did call Coulter a cunt, and Althouse did respond, and people are talking about Pelosi in the comments! It's cosmic or something!

Fourth, Campos obviously wrote it up the way he did to prevent Ann from calling on Pelosi to rebuke him (all liberal men have a castration anxiety re: Nancy Pelosi; that's why we call them "Nancy boys")

Fifth, is Campos eventually going to apologize to cunts everywhere for associating them with Ann Coulter?

Sixth, can a man really write a column calling one woman a cunt, and tear into another woman, and not have the implication bleed over that Ann Althouse is also a cunt? Maybe that was Campos' entire point and motivation to begin with.

Or does Campos have some explanation for how you aren't a cunt, even though you're a terribly dirty woman in his fevered imaginings? I mean, the way you whore yourself out to the right-wing noise machine when he's all by himself . . .

Maybe you should write a letter to the editors of the Rocky Mountain News asking permission on Campos' behalf to call you a cunt, because he obviously seems to want it.

IN THE COMMENTS: Go in there and read Daryl Herbert's 11:08 comment. I'd reprint it on the front page here -- it's one of the best comments ever -- but it's kind of long, and it's got that word. You know, the word.

Ann, you didn't say we were being graded on our comments! If I'd known, I would have tried harder. Or not posted at all. I'm feeling very inadequate here. The performance anxiety is feeling very stifiling.

I had no idea Campos meant THAT word. I thought he meant "bitch". Wow! The big "C" word. That must have been some pep talk he gave the Colorado Young Democrats! His mum (and his high school English teacher) must be proud.

MadisonMan: Maybe he thought he was doing you a favor and it just came out really wrong? If he's a friend, you should ask him directly.

I can actually see how this might be possible. He might have a completely skewed view of the blogosphere, and think he's just playing rough (but fair) with Althouse in that spirit.

I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan, but whenever a liberal says they're going to do a "left-wing version of Rush Limbaugh," it always comes out so stupid and hateful that it makes the real Rush look scholarly in comparison.

That phenomenon is similar to the experiments where people inflict pain on one another, and each person underestimates the pain they inflict on the other. The two people think they're reacting tit for tat (inflicting equal amounts of pain) but in fact they're escalating.

I'm just saying, it's plausible. Or it would be a believable, face-saving excuse with which to lead off an apology . . .

Well, I am taking the risk to take on the "one of the best comments ever"

First, Daryl's statement that the reason why Campos didn't use "cunt" was because his editors forbade it, doesn't seem true. Campos clearly said that even if he wanted to use this word, it would "be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing."So, Daryl is wrong on this, I think.

Second, I have no idea what Daryl is talking about when he says: "Campos obviously wrote it up the way he did to prevent Ann from calling on Pelosi to rebuke him (all liberal men have a castration anxiety re: Nancy Pelosi; that's why we call them "Nancy boys")"

Daryl has no idea what Campos' intentions are, so how he can use words like "obviously"? And I instinctively distrust anyone who generalizes in the way Daryl does (i.e., "all liberal men"). And don't tell me it was just a joke.

Third, when Daryl says "is Campos eventually going to apologize to cunts everywhere for associating them with Ann Coulter?", he imitates Ann Coulter's reference to gays being offended by comparison to Edwards, so I don't think that Daryl is terribly original or funny here.

Then Daryl says "can a man really write a column calling one woman a cunt, and tear into another woman, and not have the implication bleed over that Ann Althouse is also a cunt? Maybe that was Campos' entire point and motivation to begin with."

Again, what a wild conjecture! "Tear into another woman"--nobody "teared" into anyone; Campos made a reference to what he expected to be Ann's reaction. To say that he tried to project that Ann is a cunt is entirely over the line and is almost stupid, pardon my political incorrectness.

Second, I have no idea what Daryl is talking about when he says: "Campos obviously wrote it up the way he did to prevent Ann from calling on Pelosi . . .

If I say something is obvious, and:

1: it is obvious, then take my words at face value (obviously, Ann Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot," even if some people deny this on semantic grounds)

2: it might be true, then I'm overreaching and that's lame, which I try to avoid (obviously, Hillary will be the Democratic nominee)

3: it's obviously not true, then I'm making a joke. I thought it was pretty clear no one would be calling on Pelosi for anything, much less that Campos would be afraid of that, or that his comments could dissuade Althouse from doing that (which she wouldn't do in the first place, because it would be entirely bizarre)

he imitates Ann Coulter's reference to gays being offended by comparison to Edwards, so I don't think that Daryl is terribly original or funny here.

I did borrow Coulter's defensive statement, and suggest Campos might make it, because of the parallels between what Coulter and Campos said.

Coulter's comment (she says she won't call Edwards a faggot even though he is) and Campos' comments (he says he won't call Coulter a cunt even though she is) are similar. This was not an accident, Campos set it up that way as a clever joke.

He was deliberately paralleling Coulter's comments. Coulter calls Edwards a faggot, he calls her a cunt. Fair enough. My apology to the cunts of the world line was equally clever--which is to say, not very.

A lot of the jokes in the middle were cheap filler. Like "Nancy-boys." It's good for a chuckle, and I will certainly deploy it in the future as appropriate (which is to say, sparingly and only when it dovetails nicely with whatever else I'm saying).

Again, what a wild conjecture!

reality check agrees with me that Althouse may have been the focus ("He may not be talking about Coulter as much as your penchant for telling politicians and Pelosi in particular exactly how they should react and what they need to be doing.")

"Tear into another woman"--nobody "teared" into anyone; Campos made a reference to what he expected to be Ann's reaction.

His expectation is that she would act badly, unfairly, with dishonesty, as part of the "right-wing noise machine." How is that not an attack?

I expect, upon reading this comment, you will tear up and march straight to Nancy Pelosi's office, where you stridently call upon her to condemn me.

That's what it's like to debate liberals in the blogosphere--they keep running to Nancy Pelosi! Nancy boys!

To say that he tried to project that Ann is a cunt is entirely over the line and is almost stupid, pardon my political incorrectness.

Two women, part and parcel of the same Republican noise machine, committing the same sin, covering for each other. One's a cunt and the other's a nice lady. Sure.

In general, trying to project the idea that all liberals are effeminate (Nancy boys) is pretty similar to Coulter's defense of her "faggot" slur: that she was merely impying that liberals are sissies and wussies. Very classy.

I did like Hebert's "Nancy Boys" the best. Of her "hoverers" she does have a "gay guard", so does Hillary. So too did the Republicans that helped protect Foley..

We find it very difficult to openly talk about who is killing and cleansing blacks out of South Central LA (hispanics that hate blacks with a passion), or talk about Hmong failures, or talk about who the moneymen and activists are that are hellbent on shoving the gay agenda down the throat of the rest of society.

Or cabals within the CIA that enabled Joe Wilson and have warred with Bush for 5 years. The cabals within the ACLU. The players in the Open Borders Lobby. The Israel Lobby. The Ethanol Lobby. The Dodd led insurance and banking lobby.

Campos clearly said that even if he wanted to use this word, it would "be a highly inappropriate thing to do.

What Coulter said:

I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab.

What Campos said:

Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a cunt. (Interestingly, unlike "faggot," American newspapers won't print this word, although it's no more offensive). That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a cunt, Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing. Yet if I were to point out that Coulter is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a cunt, I suspect much outrage would ensue.

Campos states that Coulter is a cunt and richly deserves to be called a cunt, but that decent people don't use words like that. Coulter states that she'd get in trouble if she called Edwards a faggot. How are the two things different? Both indirectly use a nasty term to refer to someone while acknowledging you aren't allowed to use it publicly.

Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Al Sharpton a nigger. That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a nigger, Sharpton does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing. Yet if I were to point out that Sharpton is, by any reasonable standard of evaluation, a nigger, I suspect much outrage would ensue.

Would anyone seriously try to deny she was calling Sharpton a nigger? Would anyone seriously deny that that speech ITSELF is every bit as offensive as simply saying "Al Sharpton's a nigger" would be?

Oh my. This is all so incestuous it's a bit sickening. Why would one professor mention what another law professor might write in a theoretical column? What would Althouse say if X called Y a "Z?" What about the "F" word? What about the "C" word. Who cares?!

To someone who has only been following this scandal tenuously, it's hopelessly silly and almost impossible to follow. (Perhaps if there were a modicum of reason to follow it, I might be better motivated)

The only people paying any attention to Ann Coulter are the people who pay far too much attention to all this filth in the first place.

Start ignorning her, people. Igore the name callers like Coulter and Pat Robertson, Kos, Maher, etc.. and your life will be happier. Just do it.

Comrades! Companeros! I am very disappointed in all of you. Everyone knows that when positing a theoretical unsupportable argument by your opponents you must reference the worldwide struggle of the workers against the parasitic class of pseudo-intellegencia known as "pundits". Let us not be forced to send you to re-education camps, for your own good, naturally. Back to the BS - Onward!

Perhaps Professor Campos was just following the lead of former Colorado University President Elizabeth Hoffman who testified in court that the word c*nt was "a term of endearment" when defending members of the CU football team from harrassment. You see, Professor Campos really likes you and was channeling Geoffrey Chaucer, just those Colorado football players really liked Katie Hnida. Yeah, that's gotta be it.

You got a column printed in the New York Times. A law professor who has to settle for the Rocky Mountain News is bound to be jealous. The fact that he knows you just makes the jealousy worse.

I used to be jealous of Ann Coulter for writing best-selling books and appearing on TV. After all, I was a columnist too, but not that successful. But she's made such an ass of herself that she's no longer worthy of my envy.

Daryl, I agree with your premise and you have argued it effectively and with humor.

However.

Swear words are a scarce and rapidly disappearing natural resource. Despite attempts to create new swear words out of the previously acceptable nigger and faggot, we've lost over 90% of our swear words over the past 50 years.

Think of the children. When they grow up, will they be able to swear at all? When my grandfather hit his thumb with a hammer, he could shout "Damn it to Hell!" My father could yell "Shit!" and, until a few years ago, I could shout "Fuck!" to the same effect.

So please refrain from overusing the C word in such casual circumstances. It's our last genuinely forbidden word. Like "last chance" antibiotics we must be careful that it not fall into general use where it will lose it's effectiveness.

Coulter's schtick is to say something she claims io intend innocuously but which she knows will be taken as offensive in the media, then go on TV and toss her pretty hair around and and laugh and explain why it shouldn't be considered offensive -- that's how she sells her books.

It's a very clever racket, and she's a polemicist par excellence, but the act is now so transparent that it actually is offensive.

"Faggot" has nothing to do with gays? I mean, really, is she next going call Obama a "n*****r" and then claim it has nothing to with race and just means someone who is ignorant? Please.

But apparently it's an infectious idea, because first Bill Maher and now Campos have stolen that same playbook.

Oh David Walser, congratulations for being the umpteenth Althouse commenter that is unable to differentiate fantasy from reality. Campos's argument was that, IF he were to give a speech in which he called Coulter a cunt (apparently), and if Pelosi were scheduled to give a speech later at that same event, conservatives would claim to be appalled if Pelosi had neglected to denounce Campos. Note that this is a hypothetical event, and Campos did not actually make that speech. And it looks like he is mostly dancing around Coulter's cuntiness in order to imitate her coy wit. However I will give you credit for making your comment so scientific though!! It had Xs and Ys so its logic must be airtight!!

And I totally know what you mean in your 7:18 comment, Althouse. Back in 1972, I had lunch with Graciela Dunn at the Victory Blvd Burger King. It has been 35 years since I last saw her, but I was under the impression that we were the best of friends. So imagine my surprise and horror when last week I heard her say these hateful, bigoted words: "You know that bos0x, the one that's always writing for that giant, respected newspaper? He's a hypocrite...and NOT a moderate!!!!"

Anyway. I'm not sure what you're so confused about, since your idea of feminism is, in fact, a secret elite club with very strict and bizarre requirements for entry. And he did refer to you as a New York Times columnist when "blogspot hack" would probably be more precise.

Seven Machos: Oh and thanks for lightening up this horribly dismal comment thread (someone has criticized Althouse; these are dark times) with your sharp observation! Silly women! Why would they be concerned with a word that is directly related to their anatomy when there are lots of other words and phrases in this language? And don't they know that "pussy" is okay to use ever since Althouse has decreed that it is so?

Oh David Walser, congratulations for being the umpteenth Althouse commenter that is unable to differentiate fantasy from reality.

Well, at least I'm in good company.

Campos's argument was that, IF he were to give a speech in which he called Coulter a cunt (apparently), and if Pelosi were scheduled to give a speech later at that same event, conservatives would claim to be appalled if Pelosi had neglected to denounce Campos. Note that this is a hypothetical event, and Campos did not actually make that speech.

Which was hypothetical, that he did not make a speech to the Colorado Young Democrats or that he did not call Coulter a cunt? Here's the beginning of Campos' column:

This weekend, I was asked to address the annual Colorado Young Democrats convention, regarding how the media frame political stories. Here is an edited version of what I said: (Emphasis added.)

That sure scans like he's writing about a speech he just gave. I'm open to your alternative reading, if you'd be so kind as to point out how what Campos wrote could in anyway mean "Campos did not actually make that speech."

Skipping over the next few paragraphs of what Campos says is an edited version of the text of his speech, we get to where Campos does NOT call Coulter a cunt:

Now suppose I were to stand up here and call Coulter a \[expletive]. ...That would, I believe, be a highly inappropriate thing to do. Even though it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing. (Emphasis added.)

While Campos did not call Coulter a cunt, he also leaves no room for doubt that he thinks she is a cunt. Note that Campos is doing exactly what Coulter did to Edwards. She said she would not discuss Edwards because using the word "faggot" would get her in trouble. She did not call him a faggot, she just made it clear that she did not think it possible to discuss him without using that term. Campos did not call Coulter a cunt, he just made it clear that his reluctance in using the term in connection with Coulter was a concern for decorum, not accuracy. How else are we supposed to read, "it's my personal opinion that, if anyone deserves to be called a \[expletive], Coulter does, it's still the sort of thing any decent person will avoid doing"?

Bos0x, You said that Campos was dealing in hypotheticals. If that's true, so was Coulter. Both, despite the use of the subjunctive form, made their meaning very clear. Campos thinks Coulter is a cunt, but won't say so because it would be rude. You said he didn't make the speech. He claims he did. Where, exactly, did I misread what Campos wrote (as opposed to what you claim he wrote)?

Before you suggest another has completely misread something, perhaps you ought to make sure your reading is even plausible. Else, you risk beclowning yourself. By the way, those big floppy shoes look good on you. You ought to stay with that look. It'll save time, if nothing else.

How many times do I have to tell you that "pussy" used the way I did to refer to Joseph Epstein just means sissy and relates directly back to the kitty cat meaning (as in scaredy cat)? The definition does not trace back to the vulva. Stop thinking about the vulva. Joseph Epstein is nothing like a vulva for being afraid of death. Vulvas laugh at death.

After reading this this morning, and then Campos' article as a result, imagine my surprise reading the Denver papers yesterday at lunch and finding, guess who with an article there?

Yes, our esteemed hostess, on the very day that Campos called her out.

I can't find the article right now, but think that it was in the RMN on the page right after Campos' article. It was rather cute in a way, Campos yelling for censorship and slamming Ann, and Ann on (I believe) the next page calmly attacking overly sensitive law students.

Finaly someone stood up and said something in plain language.I thought it was funny myself.I think Edwards anit-christian bloggers were worse.But thats ok because christians are todays evil empire and deserve whatever derogatory remarks are made,right.People like Edwards and liberals should not throw stones in glass houses.Please you people need to get over yourselves,your not that important.

But I agree - I don't see why Ann even needs to comment on this story. The people that need to comment are the thousand or so conservatives in the room who were cheering and laughing at her comments. And the conservatives who use language like this on a daily basis (although not publicly)

But it's just exposing how conservatives really feel. Most conservatives hate the "faggots", which is why they are so obsessed with making us second class citizens.

The conservatives who are condemning her comments are just pissed that Ann has exposed them for the bigots they really are. Does anyone really think Michelle Malkin is concerned with gay people who are called faggots every single day. Puhleeeease.

David Walser: I suppose I didn't read the article very closely. I'm sorry about what I wrote about your discerning ability...

"Note that this is a hypothetical event, and Campos did not actually make that speech."

Which was hypothetical, that he did not make a speech to the Colorado Young Democrats or that he did not call Coulter a cunt?

...however, it would be nice if you had applied your marvelous deductive skills to my comment. I think that you would have found that a close reading strongly supports the interpretation that I thought that Campos's speech was hypothetical. Your eagerness to argue about Campos calling Coulter a cunt is pretty cute though, so I'll indulge you.

Note that Campos is doing exactly what Coulter did to Edwards.

...Great! That's the point. Campos was trying to construct a hypothetical that paralleled the whole Coulter-Edwards thing, with himself as Coulter and Coulter as Edwards. Coulter had a very roundabout delivery for her insult, so Campos mimics that--and he mimics it over and over, I think because he can't recreate the impact of Coulter's statement without repetition.

If you're trying to say that, when Campos called Coulter a cunt, he really meant it, fine. However "cunt" doesn't even approach the offensiveness of "faggot". "Faggot" is a word used to disparage someone just because they are gay. Coulter, then, is a huge bigot. On the other hand, "cunt" doesn't just imply "woman"; it also has the meaning of "a contemptible person", which Coulter definitely is. Campos also had to use a term that could be perceived as bigoted to effectively parallel Coulter's bigotry.

Althouse: Be careful; your defensiveness is verging on hysteria again. Nobody is criticizing your use of "pussy". I did at one point, but not in my past comments here.

just means sissy and relates directly back to the kitty cat meaning (as in scaredy cat)

Your dictionary defined "pussy" as a "weak, timid, or unmanly man". Why are pussies unmanly? Because you find them on women! Your "pussy cat" excuse would be much more compelling, except words just don't have the same connotations as they did back in 1600!

Also, sissy derives from "sister", so you're just embracing more arguably sexist words. And here you don't have any furry animals to help you.

If they are not using this language publicly then how do you know they use it?

Because I was in the closet for 30 years. And I heard this language all the time. And from conservatives (often Catholic) the hate really came spewing out. They essentially thought that gays were evil and should be eliminated from society through whatever means.